Who's /lit/'s favorite psychologist?
I've read freud's interpretation of dreams, everything by carl jung except for the red book, most of carl rogers, a lot of aldous huxley, more than I wish i'd read of ken wilber, and albert ellis is on the way in the mail but i'm running low on options and i'm trying to avoid aimless pontification, undefined and interchangeable terminology, and vague generalities that apply loosely to anything but directly to nothing. I realize those things are everywhere in the social sciences but I'd just like to keep it to a minimum. Any new names would be appreciated. Thanks.
>>8153182
Op here. I guess I should clarify that i'm mostly interested in counseling, therapy, educational, and maybe forensic psych.
>>8153182
Freud.
>>8153187
gee thanks
victor frankl, alfred alder, otto rank, lacan, fritz perls
>>8153190
Thanks.
Anything else to say about them?
>>8153190
looking up those first three now. Will definitely be ordering some.
Kohut , Karen Horney
Newer modalities:
Jeffrey E Young, Steven C Hayes
Lacan
PAVLOV FAGGOTS
A true scientist, everyone else is a pretentious screw with some cool ideas every now and then.
>>8153646
Yes, anon. Yes. They are all pretentious screws whereas you are a "True Intellectual".
>>8153190
This, and try Dabrowski, Horney, and Erikson.
>>8153662
>muh unverifiable theories and wankery
yup, you're a true intellectual because you pretend to understand Lacan.
Piaget and Vygotsky you faggot
>>8153182
my analyst desu
>>8153182
Martin Seligman. His book Learned Optimism is rather broad and excellently written.
>there are people whose favorite is not Lacan
plebes
>>8154532
he never wrote any books for non-specialists, so most people who dabble in psychoanalysis skip over him or just read a summary of his main ideas.
>>8153190
>>8153305
>>8153620
>>8153673
>>8153688
OP again. I'm not interested in how many names you know. I'm interested in what I should be reading and why. I'm genuinely amazed that none of you had anything to say about why your names are the ones I should be looking at as opposed to thousands of others. But you know, thank anyway.
>>8154592
because you did the same thing
>>8154592
You have the names, now do your own fucking research faggot.
psychology
[sahy-kol-uh-jee]
noun, plural psychologies.
1. the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.
2. the science of human and animal behavior.
science
[sahy-uh ns]
noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
psychoanalysis
[sahy-koh-uh-nal-uh-sis]
noun
1. a method of analyzing psychic phenomena and treating emotional disorders that involves treatment sessions during which the patient is encouraged to talk freely about personal experiences and especially about early childhood and dreams
Stop acting like psychoanalysis is anything but continental philosophy.
Even Freud thought these two disciplines to be quite divorced, which is why psychoanalysis wasn't added to the psychological department.
>>8154592
you did the exact same thing you douche. you made it seem like you were asking for new psychiatrists to read. clearly i'm not alone in interpreting your post that way.
>>8153182
Pointsman
Spectro
Cherrycoke
>>8153182
A lot of Freud is lifted almost directly from Schopenhauer. So Schopenhauer. I've been rereading some Laing. Nietzsche and Foucault. If you like the whole anti psychiatry kick there's quite a lot to read. Or Zizek and Lacan.
And Anatomy of Melancholy is a fantastic book to read.
>>8154592
but anon
>>8153182
>Any new names would be appreciated.
The reason I blankly said what I said (>>8153189) is partially in response to your request, but partly also because if you had the gumption to seriously thinking reading "everything by carl jung" was a good use of your time, then you've not read enough Freud. You can get the gist of Jung from like, two chapters of Symbols of Transformation. His thought amounts to a one-dimensional ghostbusting.
>>8156389
>You can get the gist of Jung from like, two chapters of Symbols of Transformation. His thought amounts to a one-dimensional ghostbusting.
Jung is a p good critic of Freud in many ways. But by all means go into more detail with why you think as you do.
Only slightly relevant, but does anyone ITT have a PDF of Karl Jasper's 'General Psychopathology'?
>>8156374
>>8153182
Jordan B Peterson should be right up your alley seeing as you read everything by Jung. He only has one book out but he has his university lectures up on youtube. Just search his name, they are amazing.
>>8154592
I'll help you out. Beware that you and I may read psychology for different reasons, as I personally read for introspection and understanding human behavior.
Dabrowski was good friends with the humanists Maslow, and his theory ultimately revolves around the same goal of self-actualization. Unlike Maslow, however, Dabrowski states that self-actualization is not through hierarchical need-fulfillment, but through "positive disintegration". Positive disintegration is essentially surviving and learning from internal crises, which are prompted existential questions (What's the meaning of life, what's the point of being moral, problem of evil, inevitability of hypocrisy, vanity, isolation, etc.).
Now what makes Dabrowski interesting is that existential crises, for him, are crucial to development, separating him from the majority of therapeutic opinion that existential crises hinder development, and are often sign of neuroses. Dabrowski believed such because he viewed existential crises motivated by a third factor; one distinct from the first and second factors of instinct and socialization. This third factor, while counter to everyday thinking and responsibilities, was actually fundamental to developing a self-actualized person, one who exemplified humanity with his own true personality. But because of the difficulty of dueling with existential questions, we often result in third-factor people ending up mentally ill, neurotic, or (even worse, according to Dabrowski) becoming an average person motivated by lower factors.
So, neuroses and mental illness were actually a sign of high development potential, another point in which Dabrowski separated himself from therapeutic consensus. These negative symptoms should not be immediately relieved through drugs, CBT, or free association; rather, these negative symptoms should be understood as a sign of a struggling individual, yet one who might save us all. And with recent studies showing that mental illness often re-surface after therapy, and that getting better mentally is based on an authentic, empathetic relationship rather one specific therapy, perhaps Dabrowski was right in not prioritizing solving them.
Anyway, that's why I like Dabrowski. Obviously it seems a bit pandering to the "tortured artist/gifted student/intellectual" stereotype, but it's a very interesting theory, and on the uniquer side of psychology.
>>8153182
>Jung
>>8157256
Not OP, but I've been interested in Dabrowski for a while and don't know where to start. Apparently, a good deal of his work still hasn't been translated into English as well. Do you have any recommendations on where to start with him?
>>8157323
His followers host a website where you can read about his theories : positivedisintegration.com
Probably the best resource for Dabrowski, and the best place to start would be the "brief sketches" and then "basic concepts". I haven't read through the 101-301 stuff, though they look like stuff for teaching more so than information. As for english books, there's also a recent english translation of TPD on Amazon
https://www.amazon.com/Personality-Shaping-Positive-Disintegration-Kazimierz-Dabrowski/dp/069242749X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465803717&sr=8-1&keywords=Dabrowski#customerReviews
Though I have no clue of the quality of translation, but it's worth checking out, I would have read it by now, but I'm a bored, lonely college student.
But google around the internet and read up, I'm sure you can find more information than me.
>>8157344
thank you so much
time to finally feel good about being a neurotic wreck :')
>>8157344
ohh also was Dabrowksi influenced by Jung at all. do you know? When I first read about positive disintegration it struck me as very similar to Campbell's Monomyth, which was basically Jungian thought applied to narrative structure. I think the connection is mentioned on the Wikipedia page for dabrowski
>>8153190
(((you)))
Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Weber, Jung
Other psychologists explain and conflate every minor weakness in a way that seeks to imprison further.
Why haven't you read Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis yet? You probably should.
Albert Bandura (love him) and Stanley Milgram are pretty boss.
>>8157256
this sounds perfect for me. are you the guy who recommended Horney and Erikson as well? would you consider them at all similar to Dabrowski, and what works would you recommend by them?
Thoughts?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-000-syndrome-e-can-neuroscience-explain-the-executioners-of-isis/?utm_source=NSNS&utm_medium=SOC&utm_campaign=hoot&cmpid=SOC%7CNSNS%7C2016-GLOBAL-hoot
>>8153182
Grossman wrote a great book that is mandatory reading for US Army officers.
